Military Buildup Could Spur Regime Change

NANCY BENAC

Published 7:00 pm, Tuesday, January 21, 2003

Associated Press Writer

Every American bomb, bullet and brigade going to the Gulf seems to increase the likelihood of war with Iraq. But there is a possibility _ if slim _ that the military buildup could get President Saddam Hussein out of power without a fight.

The United States is waging a determined campaign to convince Iraqi military commanders of the futility of opposing the American war machine and of the wisdom of turning on Saddam before the shooting starts. In short, it is a campaign to spook Iraq's high command.

"With a little bit of luck and a little bit of intimidation, the Iraqi Army may do the job for us," says retired Marine Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor, author of a book on the Persian Gulf War.

Likewise, retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who led an infantry division in the 1991 war, believes there's "a third of a chance that we'll end up avoiding war" and still disarm Iraq.

Without the military buildup, says McCaffrey, "There would be zero chance."

The odds of a military coup are greatly diminished by Saddam's elaborate security apparatus, which has different rings of forces that constantly keep watch on one another, with the most loyal forces kept closest to Saddam's side. A saying in the region holds that Saddam knows a general is disloyal before the officer does.

"The one thing he's really good at is sniffing out threats to his regime," said Andrew Terrill, research professor at the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute. As for the possibility that Saddam might offer to go into exile, Terrill said that's not in his psychological makeup.

In addition, some think the U.S. buildup will achieve a momentum that will be hard to stop short of war.

The Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon says once the military presence reaches a certain level, perhaps 150,000 or 200,000 people in the region, "You're on a path to war." He puts the odds of avoiding war at probably less than 10 or 20 percent.

Adds Terrill: "The buildup puts pressure on President Bush to act. I don't know how long you can just have a gun pointed at him (Saddam), cocked, and not do anything."

Trainor said hope for an insurrection hinges on convincing the Iraqi military of two conditions: "visible evidence of overwhelming and decisive force, and the willingness of the president of the United States to use it regardless of what the United Nations says."

It's a message that President Bush is trying to communicate with each new deployment order and each presidential pronouncement about his impatience with Saddam. Against that backdrop, U.S. officials said this week that war also could be averted if Saddam should go into exile.

Day after day, the Pentagon trickles out news of additional forces being sent to the Gulf region, everything from the hospital ship USNS Comfort to assault ships based in San Diego and fighter wings from Virginia. About 60,000 soldiers already are in the region, and the Pentagon has given the go-ahead for up to 125,000 more, toward a force that eventually could reach 250,000.

Britain, the strongest U.S. ally against Iraq, is committing 26,000 soldiers _ a quarter of its army _ to the region. It already dispatched the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal at the head of the country's biggest naval deployment since the 1982 Falklands War against Argentina.

To complement the splashy military buildup, the United States is using a variety of information warfare tactics, including propaganda broadcasts to Iraqi soldiers and the first-ever use of e-mail to generals on the opposing side, to nudge the Iraqi military toward betrayal and defection.

U.S. intelligence, for example, has been increasing "info-ops," in which leaflets dropped over Iraq urge people to listen to specific radio frequencies that carry messages like this one addressed to "soldiers of Iraq:"

"Saddam does not care for the military of Iraq. Saddam uses his soldiers as puppets, not for the glory of Iraq, but for his own personal glory. … How much longer will this incompetent leader be allowed to rule? How many more soldiers is he willing to sacrifice? Will your unit be the next one to be sacrificed?"

U.S. officials have served notice repeatedly that top lieutenants who remain loyal to Saddam and those who unleash chemical or biological weapons could ultimately face trial as war criminals.

History offers many examples of soldiers and their leaders making pragmatic decisions to switch sides when they sensed the jig was up. In Afghanistan, most recently, less-committed Taliban commanders defected and brought along the soldiers at their command, which hastened defeat of the hard-line government.

In the days after World War II, the Nationalist forces of Chiang Kai-shek suffered wholesale defections after Mao Zedong seized the countryside and began driving the Nationalists into the cities.

Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, said the key question now is when Saddam's underlings will "begin to fear the consequences of war and a coalition victory more than they fear the tyrant for whom they work."

The U.S. military buildup may serve to hasten that "crossover point," Krepinevich said, but he added: "I think it will take more than a sense that war is inevitable. It may occur perhaps following the initial attacks _ if they are devastating."